National Court–Appointed Special Advocate Program
Audit Report 07-04
December 2006
Office of the Inspector General
|
I. Activities Funded by NCASAA Since 1993
To determine the types of activities funded by NCASAA since 1993, we requested that NCASAA provide accounting data from January 1, 1993, through June 30, 2006, for all expenditures from both federal and private 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. Table 3 illustrates the activities funded by NCASAA during this period from both federal and non-federal funding sources.
As shown in Table 3, 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 funding from non-federal sources, including private foundations. NCASAA expended $82.77 million (93.15 percent) of its OJP grant funding on activities that directly supported CASA programs. The direct activities funded by NCASAA include:
We also found that NCASAA expended $12.36 million (86.80 percent) of its funding from all non-federal sources on activities that directly supported CASA programs. Further, NCASAA only expended about $1 million on fundraising activities, which was 6.81 percent of its funding from all non‑federal sources. During our review of the accounting records, we found that from 1999 through 2006, NCASAA erroneously recorded that it had allocated $1.23 million of its OJP grant funds to fundraising activities. Table 4 illustrates the OJP grant funds that were erroneously recorded.
Based on our review of NCASAA’s accounting records and supporting documentation, we determined the $1.23 million recorded as spent on fundraising was the result of an accounting error and that these funds were spent on other program activities. Therefore, NCASAA did not use OJP grant funds for fundraising activities. We informed NCASAA of the error during our review, and it has since been corrected for 2006. Nonetheless, we are recommending that OJP ensure that NCASAA establishes a methodology for allocating indirect costs so that federal funds are not charged to unallowable cost categories in the future. 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 the error during our review, and these amounts have since been reallocated to the appropriate program activities. Indirect Activities Funded by NCASAA As shown previously in Table 3, we found that NCASAA expended $6.09 million (6.85 percent) of its OJP grant funding and only $1.88 million (13.20 percent) of its funding from all non-federal sources on general and administrative support activities. NCASAA expended a total of $7.97 million (7.73 percent) of its total funding on general and administrative costs. As a result, over 90 percent of the funding received by NCASAA is expended on activities that directly supported CASA programs. We found that NCASAA’s costs related to general and administrative support activities are significantly less than average administrative costs for human services non-profit organizations. As shown in Table 5, according to Pollak and Hager, 2001, the average percentage of funds expended on indirect activities for human services non‑profit organizations and all non‑profit organizations we re 16.3 percent and 18.1 percent respectively.
From January 1, 1998, through June 30, 2006, NCASAA expended $88.87 million in funds received through OJP grant programs, of which $57.16 million (64.3 percent) was used for awards to subgrantees in support of state and local CASA programs. Table 6 illustrates the types of grant programs funded by NCASAA through subawards of OJP funding.
The subgrants funded by NCASAA included:
Table 7 illustrates the subgrantee expenditures of OJP funding received through NCASAA subgrants.
As shown in Table 7, generally the subgrantees expended the OJP funding received through NCASAA subawards on direct program activities, including personnel costs, travel to meetings with children and other relevant parties, court hearings and training, and training costs. We recommend that OJP:
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 or the outcome measures identified by Congress. Further, with the exception of the length of time a child spends in foster care, HHS and NCASAA do not report on data that specifically addresses the outcome measures identified by Congress for this audit. Nonetheless, based on the available data and the results of an OIG survey, we found that in cases where CASA volunteers are involved as compared to cases where CASA volunteers are not involved: (1) children spent more time in foster care as result of the fact that the children were generally already in foster care before a CASA volunteer was assigned; (2) children and their parents were ordered by the courts to participate in more services and received more services; (3) the case was more likely to be “permanently closed,” i.e., the children were less likely to reenter the CPS system; and (4) children were more likely to be adopted and less likely to be reunified with their parents. 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 typically involve the most serious cases of maltreatment. As stated previously, Congress directed the OIG to examine the outcomes in cases where CASA volunteers are involved as compared to cases where CASA volunteers are not involved, including:
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. Additionally, at any point in time only a small percentage of the participating state, local, and tribal CASA programs have open subgrants of OJP grant funding awarded by NCASAA. For those CASA programs that do not have subgrants, NCASAA can request, but not require, that they provide outcome data. Nonetheless, for its 2005 Annual Program Survey, NCASAA received data on children from 90 percent of its CASA program members. Because of the lack of data on the objectives 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:
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. 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 8, 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. Based on the results of the CASA Data Request and the OIG survey, 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.18 As shown in Table 9, based on the CASA Data Request and the OIG survey 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.
However, as discussed in the following sections, although children in cases involving a CASA volunteer were on average in foster care longer, in our judgment using the length of time in foster care as an outcome measure is not necessarily an indicator of the effectiveness of CASA programs. Types of Cases According to the Caliber Study, cases assigned to a CASA volunteer frequently involve the most serious cases of maltreatment and the children were more at risk. A s a result, for the majority of cases involving a CASA volunteer, the child was placed in foster care much more frequently than for cases not referred to a CASA program, as shown in Table 10.
As shown in Table 10, the Caliber Study indicates that for closed cases, children in cases involving a CASA volunteer were almost 5 times more likely to be placed in foster care as compared to children in cases that did not involve a CASA volunteer. Further, for open cases, children in cases involving a CASA volunteer were more than twice as likely to be placed in foster care than children in cases not involving a CASA volunteer. The Caliber Study also cited the Calkins and Millar Study, which they felt contained the strongest study methodology related to this outcome measure because the sample was based on CASA and non- CASA children who were equivalent in the severity of their abuse histories.21 Additionally, the Calkins and Millar Study included only those children for which a CASA volunteer was assigned early in the case. The Calkins and Millar Study found that for children with similar case histories, the children in cases involving a CASA volunteer spent on average 31 months in foster care as compared to 40 months for children in cases that did not involve a CASA volunteer. The Calkins and Millar Study concluded that there was a significant reduction in the length of time in foster care (9 months) for cases involving a CASA volunteer. Finally, The Organizational Research Services Study also concluded there is a general consensus (over 80 percent of respondents) that judges tend to assign the most difficult cases to CASA volunteers. Time in Foster Care Prior to Assignment of a CASA Volunteer Based on the results of the OIG survey, we found that the majority of respondents (51 percent) estimated that on average 81 to 100 percent of the children in cases involving a CASA volunteer were placed in foster care at some time while in the CWS. Additionally, the majority of respondents (54 percent) estimated that on average 81 to 100 percent of the children in cases involving a CASA volunteer were placed in foster care prior to the time that the case was referred to the CASA program office by the court, as shown in Table 11.
In the CASA Data Request, we asked CASA programs nationwide to provide data from their case management systems related to the total length of time children were in foster care from the day they entered the CWS and from the time a CASA volunteer was assigned. As shown in Table 12, based on the results of the CASA Data Request, we determined that for cases involving a CASA volunteer, the child was in foster care on average 15.8 months while in the CWS. However, the child was in foster care on average 10.3 months during the time that a CASA volunteer was assigned to the case.
Additionally, as shown in Table 12, for cases involving a CASA volunteer, the child was in foster care on average 5.5 months (15.8 months minus 10.3 months) before a CASA volunteer was assigned. The OIG survey also asked that the CASA program offices provide information related to the length of time children were in foster care from the day they entered the CWS until a CASA volunteer was assigned and from that point forward. As shown in Table 13, based on the results of the OIG survey, we determined that for cases involving a CASA volunteer, the child was in foster care on average 4.5 months prior to being assigned a CASA volunteer and 12.7 months after a CASA volunteer was assigned.
According to NCASAA management, reducing the amount of time in foster care is generally considered a favorable outcome. However, the actual placement outcome, i.e., adoption, reunification, permanent placement with a relative, emancipation, and guardianship, is more critical. However, NCASAA management believes that if necessary, it is better for a child to spend more time in foster care than risk a poor permanent placement. Additionally, the respondents to the OIG survey who stated that children in cases involving a CASA volunteer were more likely to be placed in foster care, based their conclusion on the fact that the children were already in foster care prior to being referred to the CASA program. Further, the respondents who stated that children in cases involving a CASA volunteer were more likely to be in foster care longer based their conclusion on the fact that volunteers focus on achieving permanency. Therefore, the primary focus is on a successful permanent placement, rather than on closing the case as quickly as possible. Increased Provision of Services According to NCASAA, a significant factor in determining a final placement outcome involves the availability and effectiveness of services for both the child and the parents. One of the duties of a CASA volunteer is to make recommendations to the court of services needed for both children and their parents. 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 also 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 14.
Based on the Youngclarke Review and Caliber Study, for cases involving a CASA volunteer, significantly more services on average were ordered by the court for children and their parents. In our judgment, this is an indication that the CASA program is effective in identifying the needs of children and parents in the CWS. The Caliber Study also reported on the types of services and percentage of services received by children and their parents for cases involving a CASA volunteer as compared to non- CASA cases. The Caliber Study found that, mental health and medical services were significantly more likely to be received by children in cases involving a CASA volunteer as compared to cases not involving a CASA volunteer. This may be an indication that the types of cases referred to CASA programs involve the most serious types of maltreatment. Additionally, the Caliber Study found that services in the areas of health care, alcohol and drug, legal, and family support were significantly more likely to be received by parents of children with a CASA volunteer than those without one. This may also be an indication that the types of cases referred to CASA programs involve the most serious types of maltreatment. 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. In the OIG survey, 95 percent of the respondents stated that more services were ordered for children in cases involving a CASA volunteer. The general comment provided by the respondents as to why more services were ordered was that the attention and time the volunteers spend with the children allows them to better identify the services needed. Additionally, in the OIG survey 89 percent of the respondents stated that more services were ordered for parents of children in cases involving a CASA volunteer. The general comment provided by the respondents as to why more services were ordered was that it is in the best interest of the child to have more services provided to parents in order for there to be a successful reunification. 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. 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 included in the study who reentered the CWS, rather the study included data on the number of cases for which subsequent allegations of abuse were reported. The Caliber Study found that:
However, it should be noted that the Caliber Study did not determine whether the subsequent allegations of abuse were substantiated. Further, the Caliber Study concluded that there was no significant difference in the subsequent allegations of abuse reported for children in cases involving a CASA volunteer as compared to cases not involving a CASA volunteer. HHS does not require state and local CPS agencies to report data on reentry into the CWS. NCASAA also does not request that its CASA program members provide reentry data. Further, 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 the child reenters the CWS, the CASA program does not receive this information unless the new case is referred by the court. Nonetheless, we requested the state, local, and tribal CASA programs provide reentry data from their case management systems on cases that were closed during FYs 2002 through 2004, for children in cases involving a CASA volunteer who had reentered the CWS after case closure. Based on the information provided in the CASA Data Request, we found that for the 75,389 CASA cases closed during FYs 2002 through 2004, only 1,073 (1.4 percent) of the children reentered the CWS during that same period. Based on the OIG survey, we found that 76 percent of the respondents stated that in cases involving a CASA volunteer, the children are less likely to reenter the CWS for the following reasons:
We found that 4 percent of the respondents in the OIG survey stated that in cases involving a CASA volunteer, the children are more likely to reenter the CWS for the following reasons:
Finally, we found that 20 percent of the OIG survey respondents stated that in cases involving a CASA volunteer, the children are as likely to reenter the CWS for the following reasons:
Based on the Youngclarke Review and our analysis of the information obtained from the CASA Data Request and OIG survey, it appears that cases involving a CASA volunteer were more likely to be “permanently closed.” 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. Dual permanent plans were in part the result of the Adoptions and Safe Families Act of 1997, which shortened timelines to encourage the speedy adoption of children for whom reunification or guardianship was not an option. Typically the primary plan is reunification with the parent and the back-up plan is adoption, both of which are pursued in parallel to reduce the time the child is in the system and the time it takes to achieve a permanent plan. Additionally, the permanent plan changes over time as conditions and circumstances change. For instance, the plan for an older child may change from reunification with the parents to independent living based on the length of time the child is in the CWS. As a result, in most instances the 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 contained information on the percentage of cases that resulted in reunification, adoption or other closure. As shown in Table 15, based on the Youngclarke Review and the Caliber Study, children in cases involving a CASA volunteer were more likely to be adopted than children in cases not involving a CASA volunteer.
However, as shown in Table 16, based on the Youngclarke Review, children in cases involving a CASA volunteer were less likely to be to be reunified with their parents, than children in cases not involving a CASA volunteer. Conversely, based on the Caliber Study, children in cases involving a CASA volunteer were more likely to be to be reunified with their parents, than children in cases not involving a CASA volunteer.
Based on the available data shown in Tables 15 and 16, we found that children in cases involving a CASA volunteer were more likely to be adopted. 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 more likely to be adopted, regardless of whether or not a CASA volunteer was involved. 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 the 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:
In the CASA Data Request, we asked all programs nationwide to report on the outcomes for children exiting the system during FY 2004. As shown in Table 17, we compared the outcomes reported in the CASA Data Request to those reported in the 2004 AFCARS report for all cases.
In addition to the CASA Data Request, based on the OIG survey we found that 49 percent of the respondents stated that children in cases involving a CASA volunteer were more likely to be adopted than children in cases not involving a CASA volunteer. The general comment provided by the respondents was that if reunification is not possible, adoption is sought since the goal is permanent placement of the child. We also found that 40 percent of the respondents to the OIG survey stated that children in cases involving a CASA volunteer were as likely to be adopted as children in cases not involving a CASA volunteer. The general comment provided by the respondents was that children are as likely to be adopted because CASA volunteers push for permanency, and adoption is a permanent solution. Finally, 11 percent of the respondents to the OIG survey stated that children in cases involving a CASA volunteer were less likely to be adopted than children in cases not involving a CASA volunteer for the following reasons:
Additionally, in the OIG survey, we found that 34 percent of the respondents stated that children in cases involving a CASA volunteer were more likely to be reunited with their family than in cases not involving a CASA volunteer. The general comment provided by the respondents was that CASA volunteers advocate and monitor cases by visiting the families, recommending services, and pushing the parents to succeed. We found that 49 percent of the respondents to the OIG survey stated that children in cases involving a CASA volunteer were as likely to be reunited with their family for the following reasons:
Finally, 16 percent of the respondents stated that children in cases involving a CASA volunteer were less likely to be reunited with their family. The general comment provided by the respondents was that cases involving a CASA volunteer are the most severe and difficult because they generally involve the most serious cases of maltreatment. 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 by Congress 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 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 studies, 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:
The Caliber Study found that the majority of cases involving a CASA volunteer are typically the most serious cases of maltreatment. This was supported by the 2005 Organizational Research Services Study which concluded there is a general consensus (over 80 percent of respondents) that judges tend to assign the most difficult cases to CASA volunteers. Therefore, 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. As a result, 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. We recommend that OJP:
Footnotes
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| « Previous | Table of Contents | Next » |